It may be accurate. Since we don't have any empirical measure of "coldness" we can't comment on their figure.

What temperature would be "twice as cold" as 35 Deg F, for example? Since we don't have a number to define the "coldness" of the 35 degree temperature, we can't multiply or divide it by anything.

We might use the term "half the energy per unit of some mass" but that, I'm guessing, would be somewhere roughly in the minus 250F range. We could divide the number 35 by two and get 17.5, but that's an arbitrary number, signifying nothing. Until you define some (retarded and idiotic) "units of coldness", then claiming "several thousand percent colder" is just as likely to be accurate as not. -- Lyle

DJ, it's three kinds of people: those who understand math, and those who don't.

I recall the book Augustine's Laws, which was a sort of Parkinson's Law applied specifically to DoD R&D and procurement and budgeting. One law had to do with the inadmissability of any figure ending in an integer. In the event that you had a such a number, one could convert it to metric and then back to standard, which would usually return a decent string after the decimal point.

That was, explained Augustine, the source of such uncannily precise statements such as "The aircraft passed within 3.28084 feet of the tower."